IMPORTANT POINT
Impleading the parties in the writ petition after long delay vitiates the petition, more so when third party rights were accrued in the meantime.

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J. —

Delay condoned in SLP (Civil) No. 18031 of 2009.

Leave granted in both petitions.

2. The appellants have preferred these two appeals, by special leave, because consequent upon the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, they are likely to lose their job of more than 14 years with the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (for short, ‘MCL’).

3. MCL is a Government of India undertaking. By the end of 1993, 38 vacancies of Mazdoors, Category-I (I.T.I.) had occurred in the MCL. MCL sent a requisition to the local employment exchange for sending a list of eligible candidates for filling up the said vacancies. The local employment exchange, in response to that requisition, sponsored 664 candidates. Out of these 664 candidates, 375 candidates submitted their biodata. After scrutiny of the biodata of these candidates, MCL called 316 candidates for the written test. Pursuant thereto, 289 candidates appeared for the same on October 29, 1995. They were also called for trade test in different batches during the period December 26, 1995 to January 5, 1996. Finally, 240 candidates secured qualifying marks. There is a dispute of fact about merit list as according to the contesting private respondents (writ petitioners before High Court), a merit list comprising 226 I.T.I. candidates was prepared by the MCL as they were found suitable in all respects, but MCL denies having prepared a merit list of 226 candidates for employment. However, it is an admitted position that, of the candidates who secured qualifying marks, 24 were given appointment as Mazdoor Category-I (I.T.I.). 14 vacancies - 5 vacancies in the trade of Auto Electrician and 9 vacancies in Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe category - could not be filled up due to non-availability of the candidates. Subsequently, it appears that fresh 84 vacancies of Mazdoor Category-I (I.T.I.) occurred and MCL requested the local employment exchange for their permission to fill up fresh vacancies from amongst the candidates who had qualified in the written test and the trade test conducted as above. There was no response from the local employment exchange to that requisition and, accordingly, MCL filled up 51 vacancies out of 84 fresh vacancies by giving employment to those candidates who had already undergone the apprenticeship with them in the year 1991-92. The present appellants are amongst those candidates.

4. The private respondents herein and few others aggrieved by the appointment of the appellants and some others to the posts of Mazdoor - Category I (I.T.I.) having been given preference as they had undergone the apprenticeship with the MCL, filed various writ petitions before the High Court of Orissa. They prayed that appointments given to 51 such appointees be quashed. They also prayed for their (writ petitioners’) absorption in the vacant posts without calling them to appear for fresh written test and/or interview.

5. MCL and its functionaries who were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition filed their counter affidavit and contested the writ petitions on diverse grounds. The defence of the MCL was that the preference was given to the apprentices who had undergone training with them in the interest of the company as coal mines use very specific and specialized high value heavy earth moving machines like dragline, shovel, dumpers, heavy duty dazers, drills and craines and those who have been extensively trained on these machines are of much use than the candidates who were trained in other industries not dealing with heavy earth moving machines. MCL justified their action on the basis of a decision of this Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. U.P. Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Others1 (1995) 2 SCC 1. It was submitted by MCL that the preference to MCL apprentices was not influenced by any consideration other than the interest of the company.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the appellant